Talk:Invisible Pink Unicorn/Archive 3

the references
While traslating this lovely article to hebrew, I've noticed there seems to be some sort of mixed up in the references, by using both cite templates and text, while the cite are actually ignored. (The links were added manually, according to the cites)


 * Angeles, Peter A. (1992), Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edition, Harper Perennial, New York, NY. ISBN 0064610268.
 * Jason Scott Yeldell (2004-11-03). "A Call to Sanity". Trafford Publishing. ISBN 141203096X, 263 pgs.
 * Jason Scott Yeldell (2005), A Call to Sanity Web Forum, Victoria Canada, ISBN 1-4120-3096-x. (www.acalltosanity.com/phpbb2)
 * Maartens, Willie (2006-06-01). "Mapping Reality" A Critical Perspective on Science and Religion. iUniverse. ISBN 0595400442.
 * Narciso, Dianna (2004-03-01). "Like Rolling Uphill" Realizing the Honesty of Atheism. Media Creations. ISBN 1932560742.
 * Malkin, Michelle (September 30, 2000). alt.atheism FAQ. Internet Archive. Retrieved on 2005-02-11.
 * Prowell, Stacy (1999-02-17). Red Iguana Dawn. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.
 * Natalie Overstreet (1994-07-19). "Veracity of Christianity". talk.origins. (Google Groups).
 * Clark, Michael D., "Camp: "It's Beyond Belief"", The Enquirer, 2006-07-21. Retrieved on 2006-08-16.
 * Sagan, Carl. The Dragon In My Garage. ISBN 0345409469.
 * Catherine Leah Palmer. Fall & Redemption Of The Purple Oyster. Satire & Humour: The Invisible Pink Unicorn.
 * The Revelation of St. Bryce the Long-Winded (Partial).
 * 1) ^ Maartens, Willie (June 1, 2006). Mapping Reality: A Critical Perspective on Science and Religion. iUniverse. ISBN 0595400442.
 * 2) ^ Narciso, Dianna (March 1, 2004). Like Rolling Uphill: Realizing the Honesty of Atheism. Media Creations. ISBN 1932560742.
 * 3) ^ Malkin, Michelle (September 30, 2000). alt.atheism FAQ. Internet Archive. Retrieved on February 11, 2005.
 * 4) ^ Jason Scott Yeldell (November 3, 2004). A Call to Sanity. Trafford Publishing. ISBN 141203096X, 263.
 * 5) ^ Prowell, Stacy (February 17, 1999). Red Iguana Dawn. Retrieved on May 19, 2006.
 * 6) ^ Natalie Overstreet (July 19, 1994). "Veracity of Christianity". talk.origins. (Google Groups).
 * 7) ^ Clark, Michael D., "Camp: "It's Beyond Belief"", The Enquirer, July 21, 2006. Retrieved on August 16, 2006.
 * 8) ^ Sagan, Carl. The Dragon In My Garage. ISBN 0345409469.
 * 9) ^ Catherine Leah Palmer. Fall & Redemption Of The Purple Oyster. Satire & Humour: The Invisible Pink Unicorn.
 * 10) ^ The Revelation of St. Bryce the Long-Winded (Partial).

Can you explain? Best regards,Yuval Y (10:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

Yes, a new and doubtless well meaning user didn't understand the intricacies of WP:Cite. I've left a link and a welcome note on his talk page. Addhoc 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) Yuval Y 08:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Further references

 * "The best part of the religion feature is the ability to simply add your own religion. It's the spiritual version of a write-in vote. A random sampling of religions on my friends list produced an interesting result. The write-in religions ranged from the skeptical ("the existence or nonexistence of God is irrelevant to humanity's ability to improve this world") to the earnest ("Trusting the LORD Jesus Christ, my Rock and Redeemer"), from the whimsical ("fundamentalist invisible pink unicorn") to the cheeky ("Balla' -- orthodox")."


 * "Salvation only a click away", 23 January 2007, The Daily Free Press, by Shari Rabin
 * ""Ergo, doubting the existence of god is far more logical, as believing in god/s/esses is the equivalent of believing in the Invisible Pink Unicorn," he wrote. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is an imaginary deity, created by atheists, who burns with anger at theists."


 * "Non-believers have their say", Kevin Eigelbach, 2 November 2006, The Cincinnati Post
 * "These organisations are just two of a whole raft of mock religions that include the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Church of the MOO and The First Church of Jesus Christ, Elvis ("For unto you is born this day in the city of Memphis, a Presley ... )."


 * "Wizards of ID cook up divine pile of spag bol", Michele Phillips, 14 September 2005, The West Australian
 * "In one video, for example, a teenage girl says, I know that the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, God, the flying spaghetti monster, pink unicorns, all of these made-up entities do not exist."

--Gwern (contribs) 18:52 17 March 2007 (GMT)
 * "Taking the Debate About God to an Online Battle", by Rachel Mosteller. Section B; Column 1; Metropolitan Desk; RELIGION JOURNAL; Pg. 6; 17 February 2007, The New York Times.

False Analogy
The whole Invisible Pink Unicorn thing is a false analogy. It is thus as reprehensible as other false analogies, including Russell's Teapot. Russell was fairly logical unless he was discussing Christianity. When he discussed Christianity, his own bitterness and emotions got the better of him and lead him to fallacious conclusions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 06:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Sounds like a fairly useless attempt at apologetics. I do not want or need to get into a discussion with you about Russell's criticism of Christianity, or for that matter about any criticism of religion, but simply stating that the analogy is wrong won't do. You provide no arguments. And for that matter, I've been a student of philosophy, logic and philosophy of science for a long time now (on my own and at university) - and I can tell you that Russell's analogy fits several religious viewpoints. For a more detailed discussion of why Religion is rationally untenable, see John Leslie Mackie The Miracle of Theism (it is a bit outdated concerning cosmology. I also suggest "Atheism - The Case against God" "The Blind Watchmaker", several books by Daniel Dennett etc etc.)Logically, the vast majority of the arguments presented in these books are perfectly sound. You would have to refute several books full of arguments (of which many are simply rationally irrefutable because they are correct) to prove that the analogy/analogies are false. Please, - don't bother.

84.56.127.123 12:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC) MikeB


 * Look up false analogy on wikipedia. It is an informal fallacy that is well-defined.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 19:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the definition of a false analogy is well-defined, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn is not a false analogy; neither is the Celestial Teapot. Go to the article about false analogies on wikipedia, and see the section titled "Incorrectly classifying an analogy false"; it says about those who try to claim an argument is a false analogy, "For the purposes of the analogy, however, it is important to check if that difference is relevant for the analogy or not." What difference can you find (that is relevant to the analogy) between faith in a particular religion, and faith in the Invisible Pink Unicorn? I've never seen a valid one offered before. If you believe you have one, I suggest you write a "Criticism" section (or at least start one on the talk page that we can discuss); however, honestly, I'm extremely skeptical that you have a logical argument to back it your "false analogy" claim.Corfe83 (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet at the same time you bother with providing these links to books with arguements, and obivously the authors "bothered" to write those books with their views, so why not "bother" to argue against them? You are using what you have learned and are convinced of being true as a hard fact. When you say that something in one of those books is correct, I'd like to hear how you can prove that with absolute concrete evidence, or it is simply your own opinion on whether or not the books are right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.199.218 (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason he says not to bother is that because unlike science which is based only on finite empirical evidence, the fields of logic and mathematics can be proven objectively true. The sum of two and two is four. There is no need to bother trying to prove it false, because it can be proven true in a way that physical sciences cannot. If something is red, and all red things are round, then the earlier something is round. The implication itself is true, regardless of whether or not all red things are round. When you make a claim that contains a contradiction, your claim is simply wrong. God cannot be both always just and always merciful. The former requires him to always assign a perfectly appropriate punishment for every crime. The latter requires him to not assign that appropriate punishment and instead spare the criminal. They cannot be simultaneously true. It is a contradiction and so even without any physical evidence, such a god does not exist. The invisible unicorn is both pink and invisible. Being pink means it reflects light of a certain wavelength. Being invisible requires it not do this. It is a contradiction and so even without any physical evidence, such a unicorn does not exist. For any apologetic attempt to redefine justice, mercy, or god, I can perform a similar apologetic for the unicorn, pink, and invisible. The analogy is thus justified, and not a false one. 76.185.61.24 (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 2+2=4 only for certain definitions of 2, + and =. You may wish to look at the branch of mathematics called abstract algebra. The rest of your logic leaves a lot to be desired, and anyway, why are you responding to something almost two years old? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dogma...
I'm a bit sceptical that there should be a section on dogma, the whole point being that IPU doesn't have dogma because it is a satire. Especially if some of the dogma is reference to a random Geocities webpage. I'm particularly concerned about the whol oyster thing ...

I mean, is the IPU like the FSM? No, it is a more sophisticated attack on religion, not a money making exercise. Or at least it shouldn't be a money making exercise ... ~AFA ʢűčķ¿Ю 18:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The dogma section is needed. The whole point of the IPU-concept is that it draws obviously asinine conclusions which will infuriate a pro-religious discussion partner, but turn out to use the same rationale as the established religions do. The dogma section simply provides examples for this. Without dogma it would only be an insider-joke, with a seemingly elaborate dogma (more exactly, a really elaborate dogma based on self-evidently illogical assumptions) it becomes a valuable argumentation. Malc82 22:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing attribution
From the article: [...] trying to find god is like using a metal detector to search for unicorns in one's sock drawer (The skeptic checks all the drawers.)

This is a direct quote from a Dilbert strip. Unfortunately, dilbert.com does not allow you to search all old strips, and I don't feel like browsing through my books just now so I can't add the exact reference at the moment. Maybe I'll find some time to look it up later, but just thought this should be mentioned here. Maybe a temporary reference should be added or something? I'm not up to speed on WP policy... 213.211.189.4 17:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It was the strip from the 20th of January 1998. It was actually talking about psychic powers though. BlackMageJ (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Red Iguana reference
I'm putting a more stable link to the Red Iguana saga in the references; however, I am puzzled by its inclusion, as well as the sentence that references it. Why is it being linked when speaking about the manifesto? Magidin 20:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Green dreams
This seemingly irrelevant (self-conflicting phrasing is unrelated to ambiguous syntax or meaninglessness) xref was added long ago, and has caused at least some confusion, so I'm going to remove it. --Belg4mit 02:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias and dubious claims
Claims that the IPU actually addresses claims of theological depth put this article in POV territory. More precise wording and less grandstanding is necessary for NPOV. The IPU only handles a narrow defense of materialist philosopby against a strawman theistic superstition. The IPU is only a satire of the immesurable nature of God and has no bearing on the validity of historical accounts, religous experience, or the human desire to know our origins and purpose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.199.62.254 (talk • contribs).


 * The IPU is a satire of man's religious belief of the immeasurable nature of God. It is well-known and widespread enough to qualify as "notable" for a Wikipedia article. Your NPOV edits claiming it to be a strawman argument, and your marking its foundations as "dubious" only obscure the fact that it's a satire of organized religion. Whether or not it is ultimately true is irrelevant to the article; this applies to all other articles about religious and anti-religious beliefs in Wikipedia as well. — Loadmaster 20:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is not whether or not it is true, or what it is meant to do, but the POV phrasings like "serve to" where "attempt to" or "intends to" are NPOV. The strawman contention does apply, and should be discussed, possibly in a criticisms section.  The introduction needs work too, as the IPU is most objectively an atheist/materialist illustration of theistic belief. The reader should be quickly introduced to this being a rhetorical tool atheists use in debate with theists.  Talking about it as something real in the introduction confuses the reader. Also, the theistic argument in the dogma section "because God is omnipresent, inability to detect Him does not reduce His believability" is POV in favor of a materialist.  The more NPOV phrasing may be something like "since God exists separately from the universe, not materially detecting Him tells us nothing about His existence or lack thereof".  (I included these changes in the most recent edit)

So are we saying it only "intends to" satirize religion, and doesn't necessarily, actually satirize it? What else would it do if it didn't satirize it? I think those edits are trivial and unnecessary. It would be absolutely true and neutral just to say it satirizes religion, because that's exactly what it does.VatoFirme (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Original Research is anything but NPOV. Encyclopedia should describe a phenomenon, not address it's implication or any peripheral data (unless they notable and well-sourced). --Draco 2k (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ipu.png
Does anybody know how to restore/undelete images? Heretic Brian0918 was arguably overzealous in his expunging of the file and it's reference in the article. --Belg4mit 22:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've linked in another invisible image, but it turns out it's just an alpha cookie cutter. I've used it to create what seems to be a replica of the original pink with alpha, but would prefer that Ipu.png be restored rather than clobbering it with this (questionable) image. --Belg4mit 23:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Explain the need for this image, and its place in the article. Why is it in the Dogma section? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-07-17 13:00Z


 * Explain why we don't. It was an accurate depiction of the IPU, and quite clever/pertinent. Why was it in dogma? I don't know, perhaps to avoid a clump of images all in one place. If that was your reasoning you could have moved the box to another section. Regardless, obliterating the image at the same time as removing the reference to it was rather ill-conceived since it did not allow for "rebuttal" or clean recovery. --Belg4mit 17:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The image is readily available online, although it's quite useless for an encyclopedia. It's more appropriate for Uncyclopedia. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-07-17 18:44Z


 * This specific image does not appear to be readily available, other than through slowly refreshing wikipedia mirrors (the original, clobbered, citation links to an instance of it w/ & w/o α). Regardless, recovering a copy of the image is not the same thing as reconstituting the original node with accompanying metadata. As for "appropriateness," you've yet to demonstrate any specific raitonale for that. Indeed, it seems more as though you'd've opted to wipe the whole entry could you have. There is nothing "uncylopedic" about the image. --Belg4mit 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the encyclopedic value of this image? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-07-18 13:34Z


 * I'm jumping in a little late here, but I'd argue that it's an image of the IPU which also serves to explain several of her contradictory features, that she is both invisible and pink at the same time. An image like this is just as encyclopedic (and appropriate for the article) as the expressionistic self-portrait in the article on Vincent van Gogh or a self portrait which includes paint dripping at Jackson Pollock. I guess what I'm saying is that you can definitely find a nice image of a unicorn and color it pink, but the fact that this had an invisible alpha channel as noted in the description says more about the IPU than an image alone. But that's just my $0.02. Wyatt Riot 13:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How does the image serve to explain the invisible/pink contradiction? All it does is show off the alpha channel feature available in some image formats. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-07-18 14:40Z
 * Which most people are sufficiently open-minded enough to realize is an incredibly apt proxy/analogy for invisible. Indeed, one could argue it requires incredible obstinance to view them as separate, unrelated things within such a clearly defined context. --Belg4mit 15:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your repeated attempts to make this personal. I'm simply asking what's encyclopedic about the image. It seems more humorous or quaint than interesting or useful for understanding the nature of contradictions. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-07-18 15:40Z
 * It's an image of the IPU which is both pink and invisible. Since this article is on the IPU, it seems relevant. I really don't know how else to put it, or what definition of "encyclopedic" you're using. This article is on the IPU, and it's a picture of her. (Sorry, not trying to be a jerk or anything, it just seems self evident to me. I'm not sure what more you're looking for.) I do agree that it is humorous or quaint, but it also serves to illustrate a point: that the IPU is both pink and invisible. Look, standard paper encyclopedies have pictures in them, and often color pictures where the color itself is important in understanding the subject. Since it's logically not possible to be pink and invisible, adding an invisible alpha channel is the next best way to convey this point. Wyatt Riot 20:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Repeated? There is but one "attack:" "obstinate." And this is a description of your not listening to the varied wordings (as means of clarification) and explanations offered, only repeating the same question and not engaging in discourse. "Heretic" was a joke. "Overzealous expunging" an "ill-conceived" are honest assessments. As I said before, a more deliberate and measured approach would have been to begin a discussion on the talk page, optionally removing the box beforehand, but certainly not removing the image. To do so is not bold, but reckless. IMHO Regardless, there doesn't seem to be too much left to discuss, you seem to be unwilling to accept that (at least to many) the image helps convey a key aspect of IPU quite well; although having the second image with alpha removed would help. Finally, as for you complaint about placement (previously addressed) I'd like to point out that original author probably included it here due to the dogmatic belief in the paradox that the IPU is I & P. --Belg4mit 22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't worth my time. As far as I know, 2 people isn't "many". &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-07-23 14:41Z
 * As opposed to one who deleted things unnnecessarily? No, many referred to the two have piped up, the person whom originally uploaded the image for insertion, the person who created the image (possibly the same as the former, cannot check because the image has been clobbered), and those whom commented on the referenced page. --Belg4mit 22:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As an admin, you should know the Deletion policy and in my opinion this image did not meet the Criteria for speedy deletion. I think the sensible thing to do at this point is to restore the image and let Consensus decide through Articles for deletion process. If consensus decides that this image does not belong here, so be it. Wyatt Riot 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 'What is the encyclopedic value of this image' - same as for anything in Category:Nothing - describing nothing is not the same as not describing. 87.194.198.122 (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to have been deleted under any valid criteria for speedy deletion and is under a free licence so I've restored it. If anyone still wants it deleted I'd suggest using Images for Deletion since there appears to be significant dispute. Bryan Derksen 01:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I loved the picture. Because it can't be seen, it show exactly the atheists' point (the meaning of Pink Unicorn) :D  SSPecter  Talk  &#9670;  08:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Seems to me that I could draw a pic of a unicorn in RGBA(255,192,203,0%), and you wouldn't be able to see the unicorn, but it would indeed be pink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.68.39 (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd rather see the picture go. It's a clever graphic joke but nothing else. Similar to completely black images that are labelled "North Pole by night". I don't need a blank pic to explain what 'invisible' means. Besides, the unicorn in the graphic is not invisible, it's hidden. Not quite the same thing. Channel &reg;    23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the article would benefit from the image's removal. It's somewhat funny, but it seems very unprofessional.  It seems like something some 15 - 20 year old kids would put up and laugh about.  I can't see how this would ever find its way into any professional encyclopedia.  I'm actually shocked at how ardently everyone is holding to keeping the image up as it hurts the non-theist position by reducing the perceived level of discourse.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.120.55 (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, what happened to the invisible pink image? Did someone just not 'get it'? I can see lots of chatter above but nobody has reverted the deletion yet. 87.194.198.122 (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm late in the game, I see that, but this issue will never cease and any decision is reversible. This article is about an invisible pink unicorn, and if there is a picture depicting such, it should be included, just as there are pictures of tigers in articles about tigers. A completely invisible picture more correctly illustrates the topic and the point of those who conceived the idea in the first place. How an accurate graphical rendition of the topic can be unprofessional is beyond me and the opinion that it's funny is certainly POV and completely meaningless. Should we remove all funny pictures from Wikipedia? Or unfunny, or sad? Bring it back! -- Henriok (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree the image with the zeroed alpha channel should be used. The current one that fades out isn't nearly as good with regard to accurate portrayal. It's not like we're asking to bring back the disambiguation page for the disambiguation article. Peaceoutside (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Case
Why in Hawaiian-pizza-lover's name is "god" capitalized in this article? --Belg4mit 04:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a personal name, like Dave or Laetitia. Skomorokh  14:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

God is not a personal name, it's a title or label. The name of the Abrahamic god is Jehovah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.11.68 (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's entirely a manual of style issue. See WP:MOS where specifically this issue is addressed.  The recommendation of our manual of style is to capitalize the G, since "God" is either an honorific title or a proper name (there seems to be no general agreement about this).   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 13:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Science or Faith
Is this a quote by Yeldell? It seems to miss the point that believers trust their "human perception" of god rather than any rational scientific process of knowing. Hence, shouldn't it read .. "refuting avowals of belief in phenomena not subject to scientific inquiry" or something similar? Michaelecyr 17:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"It is accepted that there are no actual believers in this mock goddess, but it has become popular, especially on atheist web sites and on-line discussion forums, to feign belief in her both for the sake of humor and as a form of critique or satire of theistic belief. These professions of faith intend to demonstrate the difficulty of refuting avowals of belief in phenomena outside human perception"

Dawkins quotation
I removed the following: "Richard Dawkins alluded to the Invisible Pink Unicorn in his 2006 book The God Delusion, saying that 'Russell's teapot, of course, stands for an infinite number of things whose existence is conceivable and cannot be disproved. [...] A philosophical favorite is the invisible, intangible, inaudible unicorn.'" and its citation of "The God Delusion" because there is no evidence that Dawkins is talking about IPUs here. It's too tenuous a link to be considered relevant. Rhebus (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It really doesn't matter whether the unicorn was invisible and pink, but rather that Dawkins mentions a unicorn with incongruous properties as an illustration of precisely the same idea. I will adjust the sentence to indicate that he was not necessarily referring to a unicorn which is "invisible and pink".  However, to say that this quote is irrelevant seems to miss the point entirely.  Carrying on the same way, one could equally well say that Russell's teapot should also not be mentioned, since it isn't even a unicorn.   silly rabbit  (  talk  ) 12:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're probably correct. He didn't allude to the literal IPU, but he did allude to the concept. However it's much less interesting to say "Richard Dawkins talked vaguely about something which was kinda sorta like IPUs" than it is to say "Russell invented a concept, 'Russell's Teapot', which was a similar idea to the IPU, and which is now commonly used as an example by others (including Dawkins)". Russell's teapot is a commonly used rhetorical device, and it is an interesting comparison. The fact that Richard Dawkins talks about these concepts is less interesting - many people have discussed IPU-like ideas, should we quote all of them? Rhebus (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to move this page to Atheism
This may have enough Usenet references to convince people it should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, but it is certainly not notable enough to merit its own entire page. Atheists may argue that it is "no more ridiculous than Jesus," but there is evidence of Jesus' existence (though perhaps not divinity), and he started a 2,000 year old movement to which millions subscribe even today, so he gets his own page. Likewise, Mohammed, Emperor Selassie, etc. get their pages because they are famous historical figures.

This is something that not only started from an inside joke on Usenet among a closely-knit USENET Atheist community, but also is a placeholder that could easily be substituted by anything, e.g., "My Holey Left Shoe," "The Flying Bowl of Cheerios," and other not-so-clever imaginary beings.

The reason this IS notable enough for the ATHEISM section is that (1) it has been used enough by enough people as to be somewhat recognizable over other, more freshly made-up imaginary beings, and (2) it would give the reader information about the fact that Atheists invent imaginary beings for satirical use.

As is in this very article, according to the very Usenet newsgroup out of which this sprung: "The point of this silliness is to prod the theist into remembering that their preaching is likely to be viewed by atheists as having all the credibility and seriousness of [the atheists'] preaching about the IPU," meaning that this is seen as both "silly" and as a means to "prod the theist." It is not a real entity, and doesn't have enough historical significance to merit its own page.

Summarily, not notable enough to have its own section but notable enough to be part of the Atheism section. I propose to do this.

Shiggity (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say that the AfD result demonstrates its notability as a standalone article. Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur - oppose merge - notable and verifiable as a separate topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I voted keep in that Afd, but looking at the sources now, Maartens' book only mentions it in passing, and Narciso's book is self published. This article fails wp:v/wp:rs and should redirect to Atheism where the the local newspapers and the iffy websites can serve as sources for a sentence or two on the IPU (bbhhh). -- Jeandré, 2008-07-13t05:22z
 * I agree with Jack-A-Roe. Unless there are some really brilliant new contra arguments, just keep it the way it is. --mafu (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep it here. It's a parody religion, like Flying_Spaghetti_Monster and Church of the SubGenius, and merging it into Atheism would be a sign of completely missing the point. Channel &reg;   10:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with all the objections above. It is likely that there are people out there who will want to know what the IPU is.  Also, I add the observation that Atheism is already quite long enough. --Heron (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This was determined to be notable with 682 unique non-WP Google hits. It now has 320,000. It seems to me like it should stay. - Revolving Bugbear  00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The content of this article is very much different from that on atheism. I strongly disagree with the proposed merge. &mdash; Stimpytalk 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a joke notable enough to be included in any public encyclopedia. Besides, there are far more parody religions than Atheism article could present. --Draco 2k (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I disagree with my own proposal. Similarly, it isn't enough to have an article for Family Guy, we need articles for  all the characters, too.  That's because unlike a printed and bound encyclopedia, Wikipedia can have all the articles it wants without cutting down trees.  Even crap like this.  Hell, we can afford hundreds of digital articles about Usenet Atheist in-jokes.  I just wish a Google search on 'IPU' yielded what I had been originally looking for instead of this waste of two minutes of my life. Jeandré, I appreciate the support, and even though I agree with you, I realize now that opposing Wikipedians' trend of diluting the encyclopedic canon -- pushing the standard of notability ever downward -- is a thankless and pointless endeavor. Shiggity (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)